Loading...

New India Assurance Co Ltd vs A Shivamohan Reddy on 29 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs A Shivamohan Reddy on 29 July, 2009
Author: N.Ananda


-u–II\IIr’IIr’\I\l”|| I HUN ‘ %.\..M..H’\F K13″ KXJ’-W’§.¥\3¥’*filJ’-‘t~.F’&l-3 9″IWJ?”3 L@)UKl L3!” Q

IN was mm coma-‘r or KARIVATAKA ATBAHGALORE
DATED was THE 29m my OF JULY V,
BEFORE ‘ & kk % A

‘1’!-IEI~IOH’BLEBm.a.ItJ:3’1*ii2* E A

NEW
REPREsEN1’ED%*BY%rE¢;=t1wa;aA2mmR.
mss:m1=zoAn,;

(By sax    x 

|
j . . ' . ..

  MEJOR,
son os*$.zaBA,m;z>mr,%% 
c/cs  A{fFQMQ33fi.ES,

OLD  

 _ wsa;9.KA.?AmA.\g,A,§.



‘ ‘,VAGEI)..ABfCXJT 27 YEARS

: % gacmmm Rasmme AT
_ czja .S.G.VEHUGOPAL, N.293,
j » .:7”1”ri 053%, VISWESHWARAIAH NAGAR,
H.M.T.LAYOU”I’,
% ” BANGALORE -swam. RESFOHI3E!I’I’S

(By SR1 HAREHDRAGOWDA. AKIN. FOR R2 as 3)

-«’-rm!-“« waww uuvwma wt ii*wW8¥£’M’¢fif”§.3l”\l\f’5 l”‘HU’!'”f L,,1

THIS MFA FILED U/s 173(1) 01? ACT
AGAINST Tim JUDGMENT AND AWARD kjmmn:

20.u5.2m7 PASSED RI MVC 30.5955/m’=915
mm or ‘mm XIV ADDL. JUDGE,
cwsss, IEMBER, MACT, M:Em0mLiTIAn%J&Ri:A,}

BANGALQRE, (SCCH.N0.10), AWARDING A
conmsssszrxou ore R8.2,3?,5fi6–, %–« Wm»: mmm:ksrk@ 2 *

ms APPEAL comma or: 1+*cR Ammaésroxs ‘I’HiS.
DAY, um COURT DELIVERED muowmm ”

The Lowar aourt
recon!» consent af learned
C31″ %%%% jfiis P far disposal

‘ guilty of contriiautory 1%; and
tribunaliu on the

3. I have fird Sri Rdayapralmnh. harmed

H hearrwd Camel %rm for
claiznm. N’ .,-,,,g3w.wa:L__

. .1_.{….- ‘Inf! -u-mun-m–.w«« I='”‘nM.3I”I’ uwww war” mmamvémlwmm Hm»?! LUUKI OI’ KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNAHKKA P’!%C~’>§-I {

4-. Fram the evidanm on record, we find,._t___hat
daecaased was rd1ng’ ‘ a umber Cycle and the 0

kn-ry had been mrkad on 21.:-1.4. It
attended. The: an hmpu of lorry & L

accident tack placc at 8.4.5
du%seedwhn was ‘V ‘

kn-ry, as there was af

5, ‘ iafim established from evxdfi
on has rghtly held that accident
place am naglfience on the part of

2 ‘I’haz’cfor¢, I do not find azxy gonads to

z :i%sed was aged about ea ymrs at the trim

of3’ae¢£dent. Ammim to the judit of tha Supmma
Ccaurt[ix1t1mt’:aseofSaraIaV:m13a&Othm-s\%’s. Delhi.

Tramport Carpomtrion and amthw reported in 2%?
ACJ 1298,) the aprpmprinte multipliu wuum be ‘7’. ‘Ihe

am! ‘k..f/’L\~~- fig-_.

“W-“‘ \’~”-‘*\’ V’ Nmmwmimmw vwww mwwmé U?’ WMNNMERKR §”HGH C4

tfibxznal takim into eamkiemtion, the am
auomtiutn of det:a% has defied 1173 an

Rs.3,00Gl- and deducted 1/an meexmaf

km: 01′ acpenamay wow be Lk%1:;;:

7). The ctmxpansatioxzz
tribunal towards expemes’
in on the lower awarded
tnwardn we ‘loss to astute’.
The award oompemafion
Wow» oomrmam
modified as fioflsws:

1); Lugs 5% R’s.1,t’34,0{Df-

flfioxpcrmm Rs. 15,000]-

am! afimtzian Rs. 10,090/~
X hum Rs. 20,000}-

, ,5) ofzrormrtinm Rs. 20,900}-

Tetal Ra.2,29,00G/ –

5.Iz1tharaault,Ipasatl’1e£oBnw1’ngordm-:
Tbs appeal ‘3 ital in part. ’11:: irnpnwxed
award is fiifiad. Compensatimzr. nf Rs.2,37,GDO/-

°f\.-‘ \. 5”k/\ \'{-x.-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information